The Reader: We must get it right deciding the law on medicinal cannabis

As A coalition of charities representing thousands of people who could benefit from taking cannabis medicinally, we are delighted by the conclusion of the Government’s review recommending that it should be available on prescription. We now urge the Government to adopt our principles for making access to cannabis a reality.

We want to see a system where cannabis grown to the European Medicine Agency’s good manufacturing practice standard can be prescribed by specialists in an appropriate way (capsules or oil).

Medicinal cannabis should be regulated to prevent misuse and it being sold on the black market. And its use should be clearly monitored through a registry collecting data on type, dose and outcomes.

This system must be set up quickly with robust guidance so that people can get relief from their symptoms and improve their quality of life. We’re in touching distance of people in the UK no longer having to break the law to get potentially effective treatments — it’s crucial we get this right. 
Genevieve Edwards, Director of External Affairs, MS Society
Simon Wigglesworth, Deputy Chief Executive, Epilepsy Action
David Martin, Chief Executive Officer, MS Trust
Karen Walker, Chief Executive Officer, Multiple System Atrophy Trust
Samantha Ashby, Deputy Chief Executive, SUDEP Action
Cameron Miller, Head of Policy & Public Affairs, The Brain Tumour Charity
Sally Rodohan, Acting Chair, Transverse Myelitis Society

Dear Genevieve

SAJID Javid has a big decision to make. The Government’s own advisory council on the Misuse of Drugs said on Tuesday that British doctors “should have the option to prescribe cannabis-derived medicinal products which meet appropriate safety standards to patients”.

Government, normally slow and clunking, is not naturally suited to giving immediate pain relief, but now Javid can change that. People with epilepsy or multiple sclerosis can use cannabis to ease their suffering. They should be able to do so sooner rather than later.

Your call for regulation is important too. Debates about legalisation are related to arguments over medicinal cannabis but distinct from them. Legalisation may follow, but that is a debate for a different day.

The powerful wave of public emotion caused by the distressing cases of Billy Caldwell and Alfie Dingle must be channelled to the specific goal you outline. Mr Javid should be courageous.

Ross Lydall, Health Editor

We wholeheartedly welcome Great Ormond Street Hospital’s decision to include — from the beginning — disabled children in the design of their new centre [“Boy of nine who was born blind helps design £25m GOSH unit”, July 23].

Every new construction project should be assessed for the impact of its design on disabled people. There are nearly 14 million disabled people in the country — that’s one in five of us — and it makes sense that we should listen to what they say about the services they use. Far too often, and in all areas of life, disabled people are an afterthought.

If we want disabled people to do the things they want to do — from work to shopping on the high street — then we have to get better at making sure their voices are heard from the very start of the design process. It’s imperative more organisations follow Great Ormond Street’s example.
Mark Atkinson
CEO, Scope

I cannot believe that the Mayor has joined the misguided campaign to impose a 20mph speed limit on London’s roads [“Slowdown: new limit for London”, July 24].

There is very little evidence that this will improve safety. All the evidence suggests the most polluting speed for vehicles is 10-20mph. Slow traffic pumping out particulates, stuck for longer in more traffic jams can only damage more Londoners, including their children’s lungs.

Let’s do so some proper research and find out whether the increased damage we are doing to our air quality has been properly taken into account by the advocates of 20mph, I fear not. And remember the lessons from the dire mistakes Gordon Brown made promoting diesel-powered cars to the detriment of the air quality on city streets. The best intentions can produce the worst outcomes.
Rupert Morris

IN HER article [“I’ll fight for the right to keep beloved Hackney open after midnight”, July 24] Emily Bryce-Perkins writes “most shocking of all... Hackney residents overwhelmingly voted against it”.

There was a requirement to issue a questionnaire to the residential population and licence-holders. This had a closing date of January 12. Until January 5 about 60 residents submitted a questionnaire. Then the campaign group We Love Hackney got involved and a further 600 submissions arrived.

These were mostly from Dalston postcodes, which are minimally affected by Shoreditch licences, and 80 per cent were from under-44s.

So a profoundly unrepresentative vote that was statistically unsound and, I’d suggest, inadmissible as evidence.
Andrew Clark

Further to your article [“Protect children from toxic fumes with ‘keep clear’ signs at our bus stops, says father”, July 17], Mr Smith should be applauded for his research.

But I believe the focus of our attention should be on preventing the release of those pollutants in the first place. And the sooner the better, given that about 9,000 Londoners die early every year as a result of toxic air.

Electrifying London’s transport will help to dramatically improve air quality in the capital. On the roads cleaner, greener buses are being deployed. But on the water, the picture is murky: river vessels are completely unregulated and free to pump out the same amount of toxins as nearly 700 lorries each.

This can be avoided — the technology to clean up marine vessels already exists: it’s time to bring it to London.
Kimmo Rauma
Danfoss Mobile Electrification